• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Why bother with an "additional next of kin"

#1
What is the point of appointing an additional NOK if it 'aint immediate family ?, the reason i ask, my mate was brought up by his grandparents, and his grandmother just died, however because his wife is his NOK, he wasn't entitled to free comp travel because "she's not imediate family" and therefore "Comp C" it has just cost him more than £500 to get back to attend the funeral what is effectivley his parent. I may be getting soft in my old age but surely this can't be right ?
 
#2
But just because they are on your Next of Kin (Emergency Contact) does not automatically give you rights when a compassionate case comes up -

Arrse but true ! :?
 
#3
I have seen several similar cases. Usually, where it's possible for the Comp Cell to confirm that a grandparent was effectively a parent, they will make it a Comp A. The problem is not who's on the NOK card, but the definition of a relative inasmuch as the comp regs are concerned - a grandparent isn't generally considered close enough.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#4
Terrible!
Surely in this modern day where families come in many guises a form can be designed in a way that reflects the truly important relationships in advance of such issues arising? :?
 
#5
the reason why you have an additional nok is in case you and "SHMBO" or significant other are in the car together and get wiped out or hospitalised.

had a similar problem some years ago as visiting/notifying officer, i knew there were kids at home and soldier and wife were BLR'd (not quite write off though!!) had to take steps to look after kids until alt NOK were located and got on board.

basic battle planning again.
 
#6
Although 'Next of Kin' seems very straight forward, it isn't, hence the initial question posed.

The authority for NOK issues is Casualty Procedure 2000:

8.Next of Kin. The AF B6851 completed by all Officers and Soldiers details the person they wish to be notified in the event of them becoming a listed casualty (NOTICAS) or of their involvement in an incident of public interest (PUBLINTCAS). A notifiable next of kin is not necessarily the legal next of kin and it confers no legal rights upon that individual. Initial notification of the casualty incident should be made to the person recorded on the unit next of kin record as the notifiable NOK. However, all other matters, including funeral arrangements, may be the subject of a Will or the wishes of the legal NOK. (NB. The legal NOK may be a spouse from whom the deceased was legally separated, but where a state of ‘decree absolute’ divorce had not been reached). Whilst bearing in mind that casualty notification is concerned with notifiable NOK and not legal NOK (except in e. below), the broad definition of next of kin (NOK) is as follows:

a. Married Service Person. Spouse, even if legally separated, (but see sub para e).

b. Unmarried Service Person. Father or mother, brother or sister, in that order. If a service person has no father, mother, brother or sister, they may nominate another relative as NOK. If there is no other relative, they may nominate a friend.

c. Widow, Widower, Divorcee with Children. The eldest child. If the child is a minor, the service person should name an additional nominee for notification purposes.

d. Widow, Widower, Divorcee Without Children. As for unmarried service person.

e. Refusal to Nominate Next of Kin. A service person who refuses to nominate his NOK must sign to that effect on AF B6851. In general, refusal often applies when married personnel are separated. However, unless divorced with a decree absolute, the spouse is still the legal NOK and, although not necessarily the notifiable NOK, every effort must be made to locate the spouse to carry out kinforming. This is particularly important when there are children by the marriage, although the spouse will qualify for benefits and as a result will eventually be contacted by the Department of Social Security or Army Personnel Centre. In these circumstances it is essential that this first notification to be received by a spouse is not a letter advising of benefits! (If the notifiable NOK is the father/mother of the service person they can, with delicate questioning, often provide details of the estranged spouse). This is obviously a very sensitive issue and in difficult cases advice should be sought from HQ Div/Dist and MOD PS4(A)Cas.

9. Nominees (Additional and Spouse’s). Nominees are defined as:

a. Additional Nominee. An additional nominee is a person to be notified of a casualty to a service person in addition to their NOK or instead of their NOK. An additional nominee can only be notified of a casualty instead of the NOK when:

(1) A service person considers direct notification to the NOK could have serious consequences and arranges for the additional nominee to bear the responsibility.

(2) The NOK is a minor.

b. Spouse’s Nominee. A spouse’s nominee (normally a member of a spouse’s family) is a person named by a married service person who is to be notified of casualties as well as the NOK and/or additional nominee when both them and their spouse become casualties.

10. Notifiable Casualties. Notifiable casualties are those of which the NOK (and/or nominees) of a service person must be notified. The notifiable casualties are:

a. Death. For a death to be notified there must be no doubt whatever as to the fact. Whenever there is the slightest question whether death has occurred, e.g. where a service person is believed to have drowned but the body has not been recovered and identified, the casualty must be notified as ‘Missing – believed drowned’. (Official presumption of death is not a notifiable casualty).

b. ‘Missing’ and ‘Returned from Missing’ (RFM). Missing includes kidnapping and detention by a foreign power but not illegal absence. See Annex E Chapter 2.

c. VSI, SI and III. Listing, by a medical authority, as very seriously ill (VSI), seriously ill (SI) or incapacitating illness or injury (III); the transfer between and removal from such lists. These three conditions are defined as:

(1) VSI. A patient is termed ‘very seriously ill’ when his illness or injury is of such severity that life is imminently endangered.

(2) SI. A patient is termed ‘seriously ill’ when his illness or injury is of such severity that there is cause for immediate concern but there is no imminent danger to life.

(3) III. This category applies to an individual whose illness or injury requires hospitalisation, whose condition does not warrant classification as VSI or SI, but whose illness or injury makes the person physically or mentally unable to communicate with friends or relatives.

d. Unlisted Casualties (UL). This category applies to an individual whose illness or injury requires hospitalisation but whose condition does not warrant classification as VSI, SI or III. The onus to notify NOK (and/or nominees) rests with the soldier himself and his unit, when a first class letter or telephone call will in most cases be adequate. The exception to this rule is when in the opinion of the reporting authority the casualty may be of particular public interest to warrant the sending of a PUBLINTCAS signal. In such cases, where the NOK (and/or nominees) are shown as not having been informed i.e. KINNOTFORMED, notification is to be made by the appropriate notifying authority. A telephone call will in most cases be sufficient.

e. Admittance to Hospital (Service Personnel under the Age of 18 Years). Whenever injuries or illness cause a service person under the age of 18 years to be admitted to hospital, his NOK are to be notified unless the patient asks for them not to be. If their injuries or illness are not in themselves notifiable, their wishes may be disregarded if the hospital authorities consider that it is essential or in the patient’s best interest, provided that the agreement of the officer commanding their unit is first obtained.

11. Notification. The passing of information concerning a notifiable casualty by the notifying authority to the NOK and/or nominees.

12. Notifying Authority. The notifying authorities are those authorities (unit, military hospital, Military Administrative Officer (Civil Hospital) (MAO(CH)), HQ Division/District/Brigade, MOD branch etc) responsible for notification.

13. Reporting. The action taken by a reporting authority to inform the notifying authority, the administrative authority and those others concerned of a casualty. (Initial reports are always made or confirmed in a casualty report signal).

14. Reporting Authority. The unit to which a casualty belong or which is responsible for his administration or the medical unit or hospital under whose care his is or has been or the MAO(CH) to whom his care has been notified. Exceptionally, when the service person becomes a casualty whilst on leave in a country other than the one where they are stationed they are to be reported as follows:

a. Casualty Abroad and Within the Jurisdiction of an Overseas Command. To be reported by the overseas Command.

b. Casualty Abroad and Outside the Jurisdiction of an Overseas Command. To be reported by the Defence Attaché or equivalent.

c. Casualty on Leave in the UK. To be reported by the HQ Division/District/Brigade.

15. United Kingdom. England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. (See also ‘Great Britain’).

16. Casualty Visiting Officer (CVO). An officer nominated by the unit or HQ Division/District of the area in which the NOK resides to inform the NOK of the casualty and in the case of death to act as the agent of the notifying authority.
Apologies for yet another dull Slopes' post :D
 
#7
Slopes

Dull Casualty Procedure may seem to be, but if more people in the chain of command at regimental level bothered to read it before a drama occurs, perhaps they would stop giving out duff gen which subsequently causes even more anxiety.

Dealing, as I do, with relatives of SIL & VSIL casualties and deaths, I am appalled at how many units appear not to be aware of the casualty procedure - until it's too late.

Both the Casualty Procedure and Compassionate Procedure actually work very well, providing units stick to them. Freelancing and raising false expectations only causes delays and more upset, not to mention more money off the unit budget when they are made to pay for their c*ck-ups.
 
#8
Slopes,

Could not agree with you more! I think a lot of it stems from the chain of command and the lack of interest in G1 matters, reactive rather than proactive. The only time this becomes an issue is when units deploy on ops and something goes wrong and the damn information is not as current as is should be. That said, PS4 bless their cotton socks are bloody good at what they do and are very receptive to these types of issues; Grandparents, Uncles and Aunts etc. With the introduction of being able to nominate a partner (same sex) or friend as an EC this further adds complication to the matter. It is an individuals right to nominate whomsoever they wish including additional EC, the chain of command should place greater emphasis on the G1 area of responsibility.
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#9
nomadik said:
Slopes,

Could not agree with you more! I think a lot of it stems from the chain of command and the lack of interest in G1 matters, reactive rather than proactive. The only time this becomes an issue is when units deploy on ops and something goes wrong and the damn information is not as current as is should be. That said, PS4 bless their cotton socks are bloody good at what they do and are very receptive to these types of issues; Grandparents, Uncles and Aunts etc. With the introduction of being able to nominate a partner (same sex) or friend as an EC this further adds complication to the matter. It is an individuals right to nominate whomsoever they wish including additional EC, the chain of command should place greater emphasis on the G1 area of responsibility.
I agree. Our Compassionate and Cas system is outstanding if it is used correctly (I don't think any other organisation can compare with it). In my experience the problems stem from:

1. Blokes taking the p*ss and deciding that because their girlfriends mum's best friend has a dental appointment then that justifies a Cat A.

2. Enthusiastic Unit Admin offices deciding for themselves that someone is eligible for Comp travel before the G1 system has kicked in back at home base.. and

3. Last but not least the dreaded mobile phone. This gives real problems especially for fatalities... Soldier A gets killed in RTA in Bosnia...2 minutes later Soldier B rings his mates back in Germany on mobile... 3 minutes later, news is all around the block, the NAAFI, etc etc ....5 minutes later Mrs Soldier A finds out from someone in the NAAFI queue.....

sad but true
 
#10
nomadik said:
Slopes,

Could not agree with you more! I think a lot of it stems from the chain of command and the lack of interest in G1 matters, reactive rather than proactive. The only time this becomes an issue is when units deploy on ops and something goes wrong and the damn information is not as current as is should be. That said, PS4 bless their cotton socks are bloody good at what they do and are very receptive to these types of issues; Grandparents, Uncles and Aunts etc. With the introduction of being able to nominate a partner (same sex) or friend as an EC this further adds complication to the matter. It is an individuals right to nominate whomsoever they wish including additional EC, the chain of command should place greater emphasis on the G1 area of responsibility.


Guys, I hear what you are saying. But as a married man he HAS TO nominate his wfe (For obvious reasons), however, I am also a maried man, and my old mum is my additional, so if she were to die I would get comp leave / travel, but because it was only his grandma he had to take his own prive leave and pay for it which I think sucks as she was effectively his parent.
 
#11
Mighty_Blighty said:
I am also a maried man, and my old mum is my additional, so if she were to die I would get comp leave / travel, but because it was only his grandma he had to take his own prive leave and pay for it which I think sucks as she was effectively his parent.
Mighty, you are confusing Casualty Reporting with Compassionate Leave - two entirely different subjects. The names that you give on your next of Kin (or EC now if you like) are purely for Cas Reporting, i.e. who you want informed when something happens to you.

Compassionate Leave is an entirely different criteria - yes you are right in saying that it is normally given for immediate family (Mum, Dad, Brother, Sister, Spouse) but each case is taken on it's own merits and that is what PS4 is there to do.

Just because someone appears on your EC Form does not automatically entitle you to Comp leave if something happens to them. Obversely, just because someone does not appear on your EC Form does not mean you are not entitled to Comp leave if something happens to them.

This is one of the reasons why it is no longer called the Next of Kin Form because of the confusion that arose with individuals with regards to Compassionate Leave.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top